Navigate:

FCC refereeing airwaves fight

New skirmishes are developing on the spectrum front, and the FCC is caught in the middle. |
AP Photo
Close

The highest-profile scuffle is between LightSquared, a start-up that wants to build a new nationwide wireless network, and the GPS industry that says those signals will blot out the navigation systems’ satellite feeds. Members of Congress are skeptical that the two interests can share the same spectrum peacefully.

“This is the sort of thing the agency has dealt with throughout its history,” said Julius Knapp, chief of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology. “We have to define where the fence line is and work with the parties to adjust that. … We want to make sure a new service isn’t putting unwanted energy into the neighbor’s backyard.”

Text Size

-

+

reset

In another example, the frequencies that lie at what would be channel 37 of the TV dial have long been used by the scientists who discovered the echoes of the big bang and listen for sounds of alien life. Now the auto industry, which shares those frequencies, is putting more of them to use with next-generation adaptive cruise control that needs radar detectors to “see” in all directions.

The problem for radio astronomers comes when an emission from the radar on cars hits the sensitive equipment they use to probe the depths of the universe. Auto radar may not send out a powerful beam, but it’s got enough juice to fry a radio telescope’s receptors, said Harvey Liszt, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory’s spectrum manager.

Another battle is playing out along the nation’s railroad tracks.

Congress has ordered train operators to implement a new GPS-like system to monitor train movements and improve safety by 2105, and the railroad associations say they need access to more wireless spectrum to build the systems. That worries existing users of that spectrum, who say the train companies are trying to get access to spectrum without paying for it.

Similarly, wireless companies are fighting against airplane companies and medical device-makers. Aircraft test pilots for organizations like NASA have worked out an arrangement with medical device makers like GE to minimize interference for each other’s services — a sign that private companies can work out their disputes without involving the FCC, said Neal Seidl, of GE Healthcare.

But not every wireless stakeholder is satisfied with that agreement.

The Wireless Communications Service Coalition has claim to the airwaves that sit next-door to those used by medical device makers and test pilots. The coalition says the airplane industry has called for interference protections that go too far and would make it nearly impossible to provide advanced wireless services in the neighboring band.

Coalition attorney Sinderbrand said the increased number of problems come about because there is a growing need to put dissimilar services not only in the same spectrum neighborhood but also on the same block.

“What the FCC seems to be saying is, ‘We’re going to start having to put services next to each other that will have trouble coexisting,’” Sinderbrand said.

Improved technology could be part of the answer, said Rick Kaplan, chief of the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. One possible solution is technology called “dynamic spectrum access,” which allows different users to share airwaves by detecting available frequencies. That way, a wireless device could access frequencies only when they’re not being used for military radar, for example.

“When services have not been pushed to improve technology, they won’t be pushed to be more efficient,” Kaplan said.

Interference between neighboring spectrum users is not a new problem, said Fred Campbell, CEO of Wireless Communications Association International. But as the FCC tries to make the most of the available spectrum, the risk of harmful interference is much higher.

“What level of risk or interference are we willing to tolerate?” Campbell said. “There’s a trade-off of maximizing the use of the spectrum and maximizing the usability of what you jam into the spectrum.”

CORRECTION: The name of the law firm Todd Gray is associated with was misidentified in an earlier version of this story. The firm is Dow Lohnes.

Readers' Comments (3)

The educational TV programmers in the 2.4 MHZ band have had such a long history of lying about their existing and planned uses of spectrum that they should have no credibility by now. But, of course, the FCC and the trade press have no recollection of such fraudulent statements (nor is there any indication that they would care if they knew), so history tends to just keep repeating itself.

It would be nice if reporters such as Kim Hart and Brooks Boliek had any interest or ability to tease out the BS. Perhaps this is not surprising given that the owners of Politico are some of the most active spectrum lobbyists in the U.S. (they have significant commercial TV and radio holdings in addition to Politico)--a fact that Kim Hart and Brooks Boliek consistently fail to acknowledge. It would probably be awkward to reveal the type of spectrum lobbying BS their bosses routinely endorse, so there may at least occasionally be more purposiveness to their shallow reporting than meets the eye.

This is a good, balanced summary of the spectrum battles going on at the FCC, albeit a highly non-technical one. The FCC needs more engineers, especially the Office of Engineering & Technology (OET). More experienced engineers at the FCC means that the Commission can do a better job of sorting out some of the el toro doo doo that gets filed.